Depictions of Environmental Difference

Many of the 16th-century maps and atlases in this exhibit were made without the creators going to the places that were depicted. Rather, secondhand accounts or even speculation about what these places look like informed the creation of these maps. This can be seen clearly in representations of the environments. The Vallard and Miller Atlases represent the wide range of environmental depictions on early Atlases. The Vallard Atlas is best known for its intricate environmental illustrations on each map. Though they do not vary in style, they provide geographically informed scenes. In contrast, the Miller Atlas includes many different smaller environmental features in each location, including icons of flora, fauna, and mountains. 

In order to portray the environment on their maps, the Miller Atlas takes the approach of placing geographically relevant features to show the environment of the area. However, many of these aspects appear to be placed without regard for their exact geographic location. On land, many of the cities and mountains cannot be trusted to represent true spatial relationships. Additionally, there are many locations that include other environmental aspects, such as trees, animals, or humans. The use or omission of each of these elements is important for understanding differences perceived by the authors of the maps. Take a look at a few pages of the atlases  to see the contrast for yourself! A nautical example of this pattern is the islands, which appear along much of the coast of Asia, as well as in the ocean. They are likely placed, again, as a stylistic choice or as a loose approximation of ones they know to exist. 

It is also worth noting the different approaches to mapping relatively unknown locations that each of the creators take. In the Atlas Universal, for example, artwork on land is more sparse in non-European regions. On the other hand, the Miller Atlas leaves little space on land empty, rather filling it with many environmental features. Each author made their own choices about how to portray a variety of locations, and the specific motivation behind each of these decisions is unknown. 

Another interesting comparison is between places that are and are not on Earth. Looking specifically at the Miller and Vallard Atlases in conversation with the representation of "Creation with Cosmographical Diagram," there is one key similarity. The depiction of the Garden of Eden in the image of creation reflects many of the patterns of mapping unknown places discussed above. They were not working from first hand accounts but rather from their understandings of what these places could be like, which would be informed by other cultural, social, and political factors. 

Despite their geographic inaccuracy, these maps did have a purpose at the time. These maps and atlases would never have been used for navigation on a ship because of their high cost. Instead, because of their beauty, it is presumed that they were good sources of discussion for those wealthy enough to have them. Many of their owners would never have the chance to actually travel to the indicated locations. As a result, they learned what they “knew” about the the world from these maps.  

References

Moffitt Watts, Pauline. “The European Religious Worldview and Its Influence on Mapping.” In the History of Cartography, Volume 3, part 1, Cartography in the European Renaissance, ed. David Woodward. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Miró, Mónica, Maria Algàs, María José Cantón, and Richard Trewinnard, editors. Atlas Miller. Barcelona: M. Moleiro Editor, S.A., 2006.